User talk:0kelvin
Hi, welcome to OpenArena! Thanks for your edit to the Detail brushes and lightmaps page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Leileilol (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2009 Change Hi. I noticed this edit. I'm not a mapper, thus I don't know exactly what the previous instructions told... but I was wondering if the old text may be of same utility however... Do you think that it may good to add a phrase like "If you are anyway interested on the thing, even if only for study reasons, continue reading", and then put the previous text (maybe with "small" characters) or a link to the old revision of the page? --The Gig 14:22, October 13, 2010 (UTC) Mmm... I'll leave the old text in a show/hide block. --0kelvin :In a wiki, you should have replied in my talk page (User talk:The Gig), anyway I've seen your message, this time. :-) And remember to "sign" your message in talk pages (there is a button for that, or type --~~~~ at the end of your message). If you know how to create a show/hide block here, you're welcome! --The Gig 16:37, October 15, 2010 (UTC) ::If you are able to get an easy-to use template like this out of that, it may be nice... --The Gig 20:41, October 15, 2010 (UTC) Hi! Updates? --The Gig 18:11, October 22, 2010 (UTC) Multithreading Hi! Reading this, I had fear of some confusion between threads and cores. So I expanded, explaining a little more about processors, physical cores and logical cores. The only problem is that I don't know if HyperThreading technology (that adds a logical core without adding a real second core, with results very far from a real dual core) gives some advantage or disadvantage for map compiling. --The Gig (Contact me) 09:06, March 11, 2013 (UTC) :Okay. From your test it seems map compiling is one thing that can take advantage of hyperthreading. I suppose we should do a try with a little more complex map, with three tests: * One with as many threads as total CPUs you see (to use both physical and logical cores) * One with half of them (to try using only the physical cores) * One with HT disabled in BIOS, with the same number of threads of the second test (I don't know if the OS gives any priority to physical cores over logical cores... this way we are sure only physical cores will be used!). If we have that kind of confirm (that using hyperthreading logical cores does speed up and not speed down Q3MAP or Q3MAP2 work), we can tell users they can be confortable enough to use all their cores. --The Gig (Contact me) 12:49, March 11, 2013 (UTC) :PS: With "Compiling times were 4 > 3 > 2 > 1" you meant "Compiling speeds were 4 > 3 > 2 > 1", right? I suppose 4 was faster than 3 (bigger speed, smaller time), right? --The Gig (Contact me) 12:51, March 11, 2013 (UTC) Hi! I've just done a test on a quad-core Intel Core i7 processor. When HT is enabled, Windows (Windows 7 64bit) sees 8 cores; when HT is disabled, 4. So, here there are the results compiling an (incomplete) map of mine (q3map invoked by q3radiant). I performed each test two times: * 8 threads (ht enabled) - first run: 2 minutes 13 seconds * 8 threads (ht enabled) - second run: 2 minutes 11 seconds * 4 threads (ht enabled) - first run: 3 minutes 13 seconds * 4 threads (ht enabled) - second run: 3 minutes 13 seconds * 4 threads (ht disabled) - first run: 3 minutes 5 seconds * 4 threads (ht disabled) - second run: 3 minutes 5 seconds * 8 threads (ht disabled) - first run: 3 minutes 0 seconds * 8 threads (ht disabled) - second run: 3 minutes 6 seconds What do you think we can guess from this? Are these results with q3map in line with yours with q3map2? --The Gig (Contact me) 13:35, March 11, 2013 (UTC)